4.  The applicant was born in 1909 and lives in Volodymyr-Volynsky, in the Volyn Region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1971 the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Council granted the applicant a protected tenancy of a plot of land for permanent use (безстрокове користування земельною ділянкою); subsequently the applicant gained property rights over the plot.
6.  According to the applicant, in 1984 her neighbour, C., built a garage occupying part of her land.
7.  In May 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Court (“the Town Court”) against C., seeking to remove the impediments to her possession of the plot of land at issue. She also sought compensation.
8.  On 10 August 1995, in the context of conciliatory proceedings, a municipal land commission defined the boundary between the plots and placed a set of land markers to make it visible.
9.  On 24 March 1997 the Town Court found in favour of the applicant. In particular, it ordered C. not to impede the applicant’s use of her land and dismissed the claim for compensation.
10.  On 17 April 1997 the Volyn Regional Court (since June 2001 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal) rejected an appeal in cassation by C.
11.  The judgment of 24 March 1997 having become final, on 5 May 1997 the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings.
12.  The Bailiffs’ Service requested the Town Court to clarify the manner of enforcement of the judgment. On 19 June 1997 the Town Court indicated that the boundary between the plots should be set out in accordance with the municipal land commission’s plan of 10 August 1995. Nevertheless, until at least 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service requested the court several times to provide further clarifications. In letters of 21 January and 5 April 1999, 14 January and 19 December 2000, 19 November 2001 and 12 November 2002 the Town Court replied to these requests and noted that the judgment of 24 March 1997 was final and subject to enforcement, and that the court findings were unambiguous and clear. The court also referred to its decision of 19 June 1997.
13.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date the local prosecutor requested the Town Court to interpret its judgment of 24 March 1997. On 7 July 2003 the court discontinued the proceedings upon this request as it had already interpreted the judgment in question on 19 June 1997.
14.  Between 1997 and 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service made over thirty visits to the site; however, because of C.’s resistance and unwillingness to cooperate, they were unsuccessful. Although C. was fined for such behaviour (the last occasion, according to the Government, being on 1 November 2001), the judgment of 24 March 1997 remained unenforced. The Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions. However, following appeals by the applicant, those decisions were quashed by the Town Court and the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
15.  On 19 July 2002, following the court’s reversal of one of the above-mentioned decisions to terminate the enforcement proceedings, the Bailiffs’ Service refused to resume these proceedings, as, in its view, the court findings in the judgment of 24 March 1997, as mentioned in the writ of enforcement, were vague and imprecise. On 20 August 2002 the Town Court allowed a complaint by the applicant against the Bailiffs’ Service and set aside its decision. The court also ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the judgment at issue.
16.  On several occasions during this period the applicant complained of alleged omissions or inactivity on the part of the bailiffs to their superiors.
17.  In a ruling of 6 November 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of 24 March 1997 had been enforced in full.
18.  In November 2003 the applicant, being dissatisfied with the ruling of 6 November 2003, appealed against it. On 9 December 2003 the Town Court quashed the impugned ruling, ordering the Bailiffs’ Service to resume the enforcement proceedings. On 25 February 2004 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 9 December 2003 and rendered a new one, rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the ruling of 6 November 2003. On 16 January 2008 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 25 February 2004.
19.  The applicant further requested the Supreme Court of Ukraine to review the case under the extraordinary review procedure but to no avail.